Look at the world today, and think how unpredictable so much of it has been. Even a few months ago, nobody was predicting the events in Egypt. Three years ago, nobody could imagine what has happened in Syria. And during the battle there, the deep thinkers have swung back and forth on “who’s going to win?” The truth is that we don’t know, and we cannot know, since a lot of what happens is the result of chance, or irrational passions, or unexpected natural events. Have you read The Black Swan? Its subtitle is “the impact of the highly improbable.”

This is intended to be a therapeutic blog post. Embrace skepticism, don’t be so sure. Most of the time we’re going to get it wrong, and we should expect that. Avoid the pundits, they don’t have a very good track record, and they’re generally reluctant to recognize error, let alone rethink the mental traps into which they fell en route to their latest blunder.

Remember there’s a reason why the Wall Street Journal editors throw darts at the stock page. The stocks they hit generally do as well as, or better than, those selected by the highest-paid financial advisers.

The world of tomorrow is being shaped by human decisions, not by vast impersonal forces, and those humans don’t know what they are going to decide. How can we? If you’re making policy, it’s best to reason from first principles, both moral and technical, and to watch for the first sign that you’ve got it wrong. When you spot it, change the policy as fast as you can, and keep it up until you find something that seems to work.

Every now and then you’ll have an easy call, like fighting evils like fascism or communism. Even there, you may have noticed, policy makers have often had a very tough time getting it right and fighting evil.

Then console yourself with thoughts like Churchill’s on America: Americans invariably do the right thing, after exhausting the other alternatives.

Interesting piece, some truth in it. Well, maybe not 'truth' because we don't know for sure what that is, but...the last sentence is troubling. It will require removing the Obama Administration from power. That is, enough evidence (not really disprovable) exists about the nature of the Admin that non-impeachment/non-resignation suggests that Americans no longer 'get it right.'

And while I enjoy your intellect and spirit, it will also be helpful if you acknowledge that you have gotten it wrong on Iran, Michael.

The really tough issue for humans is to not become too emotionally attached to a theory that attempts to explain observations and predict future results. One way to view the problem is to think of weather forecasting. Weather forecasts used to be so bad that they were frequently the subject of comedy. However, with increased computing power, more information, and better weather models, weather forecasting is now good enough to plan important parts of one's day like what clothes to wear and when to shop to avoid precipitation. Still, nobody would be shocked and offended if the weather model is wrong and rain misses your location. An imperfect weather forecast is significantly more useful than no forecast at all. On the other hand, nobody honest would view our current knowledge of weather as settled fact.

In politics and economics I think we get too emotionally attached to models forecasting future results. For example, the Laffer Curve is very likely correct at very high levels of taxation. I feel comfortable in predicting that humans will find ways to avoid paying income taxes at higher rates in California and revenue will be "unexpectedly" low. I'm less certain that lowering the long-term capital tax rate from 20% to 15% would cause enough economic growth to not cause a loss of revenue even though I prefer the lower tax rate. The experience of the Reagan tax cuts from insanely high rates to moderate rates doesn't automatically apply to further cuts in the moderate percentage range.

Two useful tools for detecting misinformation are 1) listening for the speech pattern of people trying to hard to sell something and 2) always being skeptical of relative numbers without units. People trying too hard to persuade are basically trying to compensate for a weak position by forcing a decision now. They know they will lose if you continue to look for something better. If you respond to their pressure with icewater in the veins non-emotional non-commitment, they will eventually expose their position.

The most common way to use statistics to misinform is to express a result as a percentage and then shift the denominator midway through the argument. Politicians and salesmen do this frequently. Fight back by demanding hard numbers with units. For example, inflation-adjusted dollars instead of percentage increase.

If we did not know some things at least provisionally, there could be no ameliorative action. Ledeen is mixing up dogmatism with empiricism and science. See http://clarespark.com/2010/11/21/through-a-glass-darkly/. This article is antidemocratic and counter-Enlightenment. Leaves ordinary people without any tools to detect who is lying to them. And destroys the rule of law that depends on facts.

Bunk. I predicted what would happen in Egypt the moment Mubarak was overthrown. One: we would have an Islamist state, or two, a military dictatorship. Egypt would look either like Iran or Turkey depending on who got the reigns of power.

Skepticism is a good thing if it leads you to the truth, but once you know the answer, skepticism handicaps you.

Congressional dems have publically embraced Obama’s level of certitude about the efficacy of Big Government—a level much higher than their own base-line belief—and it is a level Republicans have never embraced and never will. For their display of commonsense Republican are branded as obstructionist. But at least they have the sense to know what they don’t know. Not so with O and his minions.

Obamacare has always been about forcing Republicans into embracing a VAT. But the likely economic costs to the country and the likely political cost of doing so have made them stand their ground. If Obamacare is not paid for with a VAT—the only way it can be paid for—the uninsured part of the population—including illegals—are supposed to take their ire out on Republicans. But the only certainty here is that these people never have and never will vote Republican to any significant degree.

Obamacare is about destroying the private insurance industry and hoping that by them the people will have forgotten that Obamacare caused it so that they demand the government take over all health care in a single payer system for all. It's a Trojan horse is what it is. Any new taxes that must be passed to attempt to pay for it are just a bonus.

Well, forget Aquarius, this is the Age of Systemic Uncertainty. What matters in straightforward words: All the assumptions you grew up with are now trash, and the future is up for grabs.

Which is hardly news. Those most buttressed against reality -- self-important drones in the academy, 'men of letters' and truly awful wimmin, usually -- will be the last to figure it out. Less charitably, show me an academic 'specialist in his field' from the social sciences and I'll show you a raving nutjob with a strong sense of entitlement who has trouble with his shoelaces.

Poor old Joe the plumber, trashed by a self-described 'keen-eyed thinker' and wannabee polyglot. It’s entirely appropriate for such thoughts [skepticism, for crissakes] to come from a citizen of Florence, since Renaissance humanism was part of an epic revolt against (Aristotelian) certainty. . Heavens, tell me that's a parody from the Onion, or a gold-medal candidate for Pseuds Corner in the satirical mag PrivateEye! Sad to say, Joe is way ahead of all you precious halfwits, and he thinks, works and trusts in the idioms of the Anthem of the Working Man.

In the present case, let us ask the Muse, are you about to offer your services '[to work] together on military/engineering schemes' to divert the Potomac, the scruffy man's Arno? Or, as Brits are known to say from time to time, do you just feel like a good wank?